MoJ Statute of Limitations Consultation

[natalie]

A while ago I heard that the MoJ was putting together a consultation paper on reducing SB to 3 years instead of 6. Does anyone know what happened? I gather it got shelved because I cant find anything on their website about it, although I have found the CAB and MAT's responses to it. Do we know why and if it is likely to be picked up again?

 

If so, is it worth CAGgers lobbying their local MP's to get something done?

Edited November 9, 2010 by natalie
typo

[sequenci]

Hello there, as far as I know the proposal was shelved. As you can imagine the Debt Collection Industry went a little crazy over the idea!

 

If I discover anything to the contrary I'll let you know!

 

Best wishes,

 

Seq

[sillygirl1]

3 years is long enough for them to chase people, if you went to prison for debt the sentance wouldn't be 3 years... they really want to line their own pockets and keep the country heavily in debt because it creates jobs for the jobless... who possibly wouldn't get employment in any other industry.

[sequenci]

3 years is long enough for them to chase people, if you went to prison for debt the sentance wouldn't be 3 years... they really want to line their own pockets and keep the country heavily in debt because it creates jobs for the jobless... who possibly wouldn't get employment in any other industry.

 

Well the limitation act works both ways, bank charges for example! I personally agree that it should be three years, I aslo think that credit files should have significant changes. Defaults should last for three years, missed payments for a year. CCJs should be three years and IVAs/Bankruptcies should stay at 6.

 

Oop, sorry for the slight tangent!

[rebel11]

Hi guys

 

Due to recent cases, the creditor can continue to add interest to the debt, even though there is a possibility that the debtor will never pay that debt. I wonder if a creditor would keep adding interest for 6 years, then write the debt plus interest off. So in effect they are creating a greater loss then if they had to write it off after 6 months.

[sillygirl1]

They can add interest for 6 years for a debt under seal, ie a mortgage but not for 6 years for other debt which attracts interest at 8%... either way the interest is at 8%.... some companies have been misquoting the law on this.

 

If they had there way NO debt would die until paid - and ANY debt would automatically double every year... I've seen proposals on other sites to this effect (Credit Today had a thread on their forum about this but it got pulled... wonder why).

[rebel11]

The OFT have confirmed that they can continue charging interest, even when the agreement is unenforceable. This is down to recent cases, Carey etc.

 

They can add interest for 6 years for a debt under seal, ie a mortgage but not for 6 years for other debt which attracts interest at 8%... either way the interest is at 8%.... some companies have been misquoting the law on this.

 

If they had there way NO debt would die until paid - and ANY debt would automatically double every year... I've seen proposals on other sites to this effect (Credit Today had a thread on their forum about this but it got pulled... wonder why).

[sequenci]

They can add interest for 6 years for a debt under seal, ie a mortgage but not for 6 years for other debt which attracts interest at 8%... either way the interest is at 8%.... some companies have been misquoting the law on this.

 

I'm not sure I get that, I was always under the impression that a creditor can apply contractual, rather than statutory interest, if it is financially better for them. I appreciate the limitation period of mortgages etc is only 6 years, though.

 

I also appreciate that if the principle is stat barred - so is any interest (according to Elder v Northcott [1930] 2 Ch 422)